WHO says processed meat causes cancer
 

http://www.aicr.org/press/press-rele...nd-Cancer.html

If loving steak is wrong, I don't wanna be right!

What doesn't cause cancer.

How is steak processed?

Antifreeze

Cancer means disease....we will all eventually die of a disease. So don't listen to these bundle of stickss. Eat what you love and love what you eat. A happy life is better than a longer miserable one.

By a butcher

WHO?

Sounds like it's the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer that's saying it.

I've never heard about red meat causing cancer. On the other hand I wouldn't rely on much from WHO either.

Venison and Phesant... FTW

But to be fair, you pretty consistently ignore science.

I don't find eating healthy leads to misery. Your taste buds change if you eat healthy. Then junk food or over processed food tastes bland. Besides, I feel better, look better and have more energy.
Food alone doesn't make for a happy life anyway.

Do you think obesity and the epidemic of Diabetes Type 2 makes anyone happy?

That's precisely what I am getting at...if that's what you love to do then do it. Be happy, don't let someone else make you feel guilty about how you're living your life.

dammit, I eat cold cuts almost every day

Read the OP

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Y6MQUaXFfLY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I suspect the ****s at PETA are behind this, somehow.

I just hope they put a "health tax" or something on this kind of food so we can use that money to solve the problem.

I don't think I was referring to the same thing. I was referring to how well a person can "feel" if they eat poorly—especially later in life when it catches up with them. I mean, I'm sure a heroin addict feels great being high. I doubt they're really experience real happiness though. Likewise, I doubt an obese person is happy too. Well, I am sure there are always exceptions.

It's not like there isn't a kernel of truth in what you're saying though. I just think moderation plays a role in such ideas.

Kc BBQ tailgate style Soylent Green old people patties and sweet potato fries. yum yum

In semi-related news... testers found unlabeled meats, hygiene problems, and other unexpected ingredients in hot dogs. And human DNA in 2 percent of hot dogs sampled (2/3 of which were vegetarian hot dogs).

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...dogs/74617102/
http://www.clearfood.com/food_report..._hotdog_report

read the article

risk increases as consumption increases, so yea if you eat all red meat, it's bad for the colon, increasing cancer risk. duh...

where is the study about increased consumption of poultry increasing risk of cancer, gonna be very similar.

balanced diet, it's not rocket surgery folks

now the processed meats are a different bag, there can be a lot of crap in there, can be...

look further into processed foods like canned soups, boxed pasta dishes, etc, same deal folks, that shit is not good for you, duh...

Exactly.

This isn't news. At all.

Nitrates have always been bad for you, red meat has always caused cancer and processed meats simply wreck havoc from head to toe.

Sounds like a bunch of baloney. Or bologna.

Ha ha.... Vegetarians....

Exactly. Not a lot of shocking information here.

I think the "shocking" (if you can call it that) thing here is that they classified it on par with cigarettes. That's a pretty substantial move.

When does the USDA start packing cold cuts with a cancer warning?

Stop
.

Bwahahahahahahahaha - we'd have to get them to label GMO food as well as crap from China first :\

That's incorrect.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...hina_study.png
<object id="__symantecPKIClientMessenger" style="display: none;"></object>

YOU'RE incorrect.

I misspoke, I shouldn't have said "on par." But they did classify it at the same level of cigarettes, Group 1.

But the classification doesn't mean they're as bad as cigarettes.

What you said was incorrect. That's why you admit you shouldn't have said what you did. You shouldn't have said "On par", because it's actually not "On par." The group classification is meaningless with regards to any type of comparison with others in the group. Because it doesn't assess any level of risk at all.

Wade Davis

**** the WHO

This isn't really 'new' news. The case has been built for a long time about processed meats like bacon and hot dogs and sausage. The red meat part is mostly the same, nobody really seems to doubt anymore that red meat is carcinogenic, but the risks associated to it is made worse when grilled or smoked.

For myself, I rarely eat red meat anymore except for some occasion or as an exception. I mostly eat poultry and fish now, which has been hard for me since I really don't like fish at all.

I think the larger problem is that people see food as some kind of recreation. Marketing has a lot to do with it, look what the viral marketing around bacon has done in the last several years. Maybe we should just find better hobbies than eating..?

No I don't ignore science. Not to mention your stating it as a sweeping generality.* I just follow natural science over govt associated science that protects vested interests. Scientists disagree on things especially nutrition.

WHO is govt related. Govt screws things up more than they don't.

* I recall you defended my not putting stuffing inside a turkey to cook for scientific reasons. So yes, you are over generalizing.

Yep!

Red meat is not carcinogenic in and of itself. It is actually good for you and contains B12. Not all metabolic types do well on it as a key part of their diet but many do, particularly Type O blood.

Wehn I have gone on a no red meat kick I wound up with B12 anemia. It was fatiguing me.

I think another problem is that most of the healthy eating information on the web tends toward cranky conspiracy theory nonsense. You have too much of the GMO kookery and anti vaccination kookery and idiots like the food babe out there confusing people. You have to dig to find well curated, sensible information.

If you are interested in reading something level headed and well grounded, a friend of mine in the medical profession recommended http://www.drweil.com to me. I've been reading it for a year or two and it's a good resource from someone who's qualified and without all the tripe you usually find on healthy eating sites

When I said "on par" the intention was that it was the same level, which it is.

Stop being an ass.

As if that material has only ever been on the web. It's been out there long before. The rest is just your uninformed opinion using your usual shilling device of "conspiracy theory" when crony capitalism is known to exist and it's not a BIG secret combined with the commission of a crime. Learn the definition of "conspiracy." It's not different that the idea that ACA benefits the insurance industry by creating a gauranteed larger market for them.

ROFL The medical profession for nutrition? You've got to be kidding me. They're barely trained in it. They're role is to treat pathology more.


Such a radical idea to eat a balance of good proteins, carbs and fats with lots of colored fruits and veggies with a good portion being raw and using good healthy oils. I also do not buy that saturated fat is bad for you. You need some. The theories on cholesterol being related to heart disease is currently being updated too. Only the medical profession is usually behind.

I am all ready starting to dread Christmas when all the vegan In-laws show up at the door.

*My goal for 2016 is to only eat meat and fish that I've procured myself... IE, Venison (Deer, Elk), and Fish that I've caught.

*I will also indulge in a J. Gilbert's steak from time to time. :)

Yes, as you've said the classification doesn't say anything about the relative dangers of things in the same category.

The straw man argument (this is actually a straw man, not the CP taunt of 'straw man') is that WHO is saying bacon is as bad as tobacco, which isn't what they are saying. They are saying processed meats do cause cancer, and that red meat probably does, but it's still in category 2 because it needs more study.

It isn't. They declared hot dogs, cold cuts and other processed meat to definitely be carcinogens. But steak as, probably.

I don't know, who?

Tell 'em their veggie hot dogs probably contain human DNA and pork.

I give up. WHO?

Q

I also think that they should be careful to differentiate animals on what they eat. For example, Grass-Fed animals tend to look and taste a lot more healthy than corn (and whatever the hell else) is fed to those penned up animals.

So that lady that did the sausage in the Walmart bathroom is hosed !

Well, bye.

That's what I'm asking. Who is saying processed meat causes cancer?

I think its pretty understood in medical research regarding cancer, that it's generally not that something causes cancer, but rather a certain amount of something causes cancer. You smoke a cig once a month at a buddies house, you aren't getting lung cancer from it. You eat a ham sandwich once a month for lunch, you aren't getting cancer from it.

Reasonable is this: Eat a whole foods, plant based diet, and supplement your protein with sustainable fish and cage free chicken. Once in a while have a lean cut of red meat/pork. Limit processed sugars, processed carbs in general. Try to get 30-45 minutes of excercise 4-5 days a week. Do that and you are good to go. No, eating a ham sandwich isn't going to cause you to get cancer.

Also, to BEP, no, the medical community is not behind on the cholesterol research. It's pretty clear that a high LDL is not good for you, and a low HDL is not good for you. What is new, is that it's the type of LDL (particle size) that really matters, and more importantly, the amount of vessel inflammation for those small particles to lodge in, that makes a difference. Most of the public is just not able to process all of it really, so it's canned as "Cholesterol is bad for you and these foods are high in cholesterol".

You seem nice.

Yeah, well, I am.

Sticking your head up a butcher's ass will also cause cancer.

Tommy Callahan

I'll vouch for him. He's the nicest tooge I know.

Of course, I'm generalizing. But one time does not make a trend.

Generally, you give science a middle finger under the guise of "government sponsored."

I ain't mad at you, I like you. But you're kind of a kook when it comes to nutrition. You often take whatever seems to make sense to you as gospel and ignore science.

Smart too. Seems so simple. Eat a lot of fruits and vegetables, lean meat and fish... Indulge in a BLT or Ribeye every so often (like you would alcohol)...

I love lamp

You absolutely ignore science, sweetheart. Anytime it doesn't coincide with your wacky anecdotal opinions, you ignore science. There's no such thing as natural science vs govt associated science. That's simply you applying your confirmation bias to the outside world.

WHO is government related? What is that even supposed to mean? The WHO is made up of 61 different countries around the world.

Kind of a kook?

True that.

The conspiracy theory nonsense, as you put it, has credibility with a lot of people for two reasons:

1. Because the "well curated, sensible information" has been wrong often enough that it matters
2. Because the conspiracy theories have turned out to have been right, or close to right, often enough that it matters

1. It's not the meat, but the processing
2. Categorization with cigarettes isn't about similar carcinogen density, but similar level of scientific certainty regarding the carcinogenic nature of processing byproducts.

It's kind of like warning that styrofoam can crush you much like concrete can. Sure, but it's going to take a much larger volume of styrofoam on your chest.

I believe they are saying it's the meat and the processing. Processing just amplifies the risk.

It won't be long before red meat itself is agreed upon by most health authorities as a carcinogen, IMO.

That liberal rag the KC Star has an article pointing out the conflicts in this "research" that "proves" a certain food causes cancer. It's ridiculous and unfounded. The largest consumers of red meat (surprisingly they don't live in the US) have no higher incidence of cancer than any other group.

In 1990, coffee was the death knell. Now, people can't drink it fast enough.

Pick and choose the parts of this article that support your idea of how you'll die... or live forever.

http://www.kansascity.com/living/hea...e41466489.html

Your taste buds change huh? Science.

I KNOW they didn't say bacon is bad for you on purpose...

Good. 'cause I made this yesterday.

http://images.tapatalk-cdn.com/15/10...8e16ebb575.jpg

Would...

So,I should cut out the bacon wrapped cigars?

The China Study stated this years ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_China_Study

My dad says this study is BS. He's 75, has eaten meat about everyday of his life, and fit as a horse. :)

The takeaway is about as good as from most of these studies. Don't eat 6 hotdogs a day for 60 years.

If eating bacon is wrong, I don't want to be right.